ILNews

Workers’ comp, JTAC bills pass full Senate

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Legislation out of the House of Representatives reconfiguring workers’ compensation in Indiana passed the Senate Wednesday and goes back to the House with some changes.

House Bill 1320 increases nonmedical workers’ compensation caps to $390,000 per injury for injuries happening after July 1, 2014. It also increases the average weekly wage used to calculate compensation for nonmedical temporary partial or total disability, and for total permanent disability; on or after July 1, 2014, the average weekly wage used will be $1,170. That’s a $195 increase over the wage used for injuries that would occur today.

The bill also makes changes to payment rates as compared to Medicare. The legislation passed the Senate 43-7.

The Judicial Technology and Automation bill, HB 1393, passed the Senate 50-0. The bill establishes a judicial technology oversight committee, requires the Division of State Court Administration to develop and implement a standard protocol for sending and receiving court data by the end of the year, and increases the automated record keeping fee by $2 for two years, among other things. HB 1393 returns to the House with amendments.

The Senate also passed HB 1482 by a vote of 39-11. The bill allows a court to expunge records concerning misdemeanor convictions and minor Class D felony convictions under certain circumstances, and it gives judges discretion concerning some more serious felony convictions. The bill returns to the House with amendments.

On Thursday, the Senate concurred with House amendments to SB 125. The bill, which creates a commission on improving the status of children, a Department of Child Services oversight committee, and establishes a local child fatality review team in each county and a statewide child fatality review committee, passed 48-1 and is ready for enrollment. The introduced version of the bill was prepared by the Department of Child Services Interim Study Committee.

Also on Wednesday, the House voted 93-0 to approve Senate Bill 433 addressing abandoned property issues. The bill establishes a procedure to allow a county executive to dispose of certain properties that didn’t sell at a tax sale to a person who is able to repair and maintain the property. It also says that someone who enters or refuses to leave a vacant or abandoned property after having been barred from it by a court order or law enforcement officer commits criminal trespass. SB 433 was returned to the Senate with amendments. 

SB 285 regarding wavier of the right to remonstrate against annexation passed the House 93-0. It provides that if someone waives his or her right to remonstrate against an annexation as part of a contract with a municipality for providing sewer service to the property, then that release isn’t binding on a successor in title of the property under certain circumstances.  It also returns to the Senate after being amended.

The 2013 legislative session is scheduled to end April 29.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT